HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[manicm]

I'm not sure most people can say they want accuracy while they embrace MP3s or less than cd quality streaming wholesale. That's just anyone's guess.

 

[Vladimir]

Devialet allow you to change the input sensitivity on Phono inputs from .2VRMS to 4.0VRMS. - Is this the way forward?

2Vrms for unbalanced line and 4Vrms is for balanced.

And I told you Devialet is desirable hi-fi porn. It's not only good performance kit but also a statement of industrial design, which I like.

 

[lindsayt]

It's funny, I remember Vlad and I being accused by the anti-science crowd in this thread of using veiled insults cuz we ran out of points etc... Yet I don't see them objecting to a string of blatant insults being aimed at me by somone from their side of the argument.

Anyway Chris, I'm sure you can see arguing this point with him is a waste of time.

Ajani, are you referring to Thompsonuxb or me or both of us?

I'd prefer it if you used usernames when referring to other members of this forum.

Instead of using mildly insulting ad hominem tags like "the anti-science crowd".

So you also find that insulting, but have no comment on other posters refering to me/my posts as Idiotry, Foo and Zealotry? Which was exactly my point.

I didn't realize I was expected to go back and look up the names of all those persons who complained about the veiled insults. It wasn't worth the effort, so I didn't do it and I still don't see a point in doing it.

Ajani, I only feel inclined to respond to ad hominem personal insults aimed at me.

I am not a moderator on this forum.

If I were, I would set a very clear rule about ad hominem not being allowed.

On that basis, if I were a moderator of this forum then some of your posts would have been edited by me and you would have been given two warnings and a weeks holiday for your use of ad hominem insults in this thread.

If I were a moderator then I would also investigate any ad hominem insults aimed at you by other posters.

But, as I said, I am not a moderator on this forum. It's not up to me how this forum is run. However I do have the right to express my disaproval of ad hominem insults aimed at me.

 

[lindsayt]

This is why I don't see the point in continuing a discussion with you, you are not understanding my points and instead insist on feeling insulted over things which were never intended to be insulting.

You want me to name a speaker for you to SUBJECTIVELY evaluate and if you come to an agreeable SUBJECTIVE evaluation, then you will change your mind. If you come to a different SUBJECTIVE evaluation you will return to the thread and say I'm wrong. That sounds like a complete waste of time to me.

So since I don't see any point in the "test" that you have proposed, I see no way to resolve our differences of opinion and I'll repeat again: Nothing we say will change each other's minds. So can we stop wasting time with this?

To recap. In your opening post you said "But as you reach statement prices, all the HiFi gear should start to sound more similar, as the compromises are no longer required."

I responded with post #2, trying to explain in simple laymans terms why speakers at statement prices don't sound similar and how speaker design is a series of balancing compromises.

In post #35 you said "Sure, but those compromises should become smaller and smaller and the advantages should become less clear, if they are all aiming to be accurate." This contradicts the whole point I was trying to put across with post #2.

So: you believe that statement speakers should sound more and more alike as they become higher end.

I believe that there will always be significant differences due to different compromises in the variety of speaker designs in the high end.

Who is right on this? Who is wrong?

I can name specific models that support my hypothesis. Anyone can go out and listen to them to decide if they agree with me or not.

You on the other hand have not provided any specific examples at all (apart from Magico S7's which I'm not sure was meant as a serious example and you may have just plucked them from the air without any actual experience or knowledge of the good and bad aspects of those speakers).

I think you're just using the "I don't want to waste my time" as an excuse. I think you can't name a single example of any speakers that reinforce your hypothesis. You can't name a single example because you don't know of any. You don't know of any because there aren't any. There aren't any because your hypothesis is wrong.

 

[chebby]

Who is right on this?

Normally it defaults to Davedotco (or else he gets all upset and starts dropping names everywhere).

However he has been attached to a bottle since New Year's Eve and hasn't shown up except to make his excuses a couple of days ago. (His absence has resulted in Vlad getting out of control and throwing rocks at peasants from his mountain lair!)

 

[Vladimir]

Cue Lead Balloon's theme song

Paul Weller - One Way Road

 

[Ajani]

To recap. In your opening post you said "But as you reach statement prices, all the HiFi gear should start to sound more similar, as the compromises are no longer required.[/b]"

I responded with post #2, trying to explain in simple laymans terms why speakers at statement prices don't sound similar and how speaker design is a series of balancing compromises.

In post #35 you said "Sure, but those compromises should become smaller and smaller and the advantages should become less clear, if they are all aiming to be accurate." This contradicts the whole point I was trying to put across with post #2.

So: you believe that statement speakers should sound more and more alike as they become higher end.

I believe that there will always be significant differences due to different compromises in the variety of speaker designs in the high end.

Who is right on this? Who is wrong?

I can name specific models that support my hypothesis. Anyone can go out and listen to them to decide if they agree with me or not.

You on the other hand have not provided any specific examples at all (apart from Magico S7's which I'm not sure was meant as a serious example and you may have just plucked them from the air without any actual experience or knowledge of the good and bad aspects of those speakers).

I think you're just using the "I don't want to waste my time" as an excuse. I think you can't name a single example of any speakers that reinforce your hypothesis. You can't name a single example because you don't know of any. You don't know of any because there aren't any. There aren't any because your hypothesis is wrong.

My hypothesis as highlighted is in relation to Colouration. I believe most of the differences in HiFi are due to deliberate colouration of the sound rather than the aim of being accurate.

You believe that any differences are due to limits in speaker technology and not house sound/coulouration.

How do you propose that either of us prove our positions? I thought it was obvious that neither can be proved in the manner you suggest. But you think you must be right, because you can name speakers that don't sound the same. How does that prove that the differences are entirely due to limitations of the technology and not deliberate colouration?

So unless you have a proper test, then we arguing opinions. Hence you are free to disagree with my Hypothesis. But you still haven't provided any proof or your position. So why are we arguing? And as I've said countless times: nothing we say will change each other's opinions. Thank god you're not a mod, since you would suspend me for saying that.

Anyway, if you come up with an interesting test, I'll respond. Otherwise feel free to have the last word, as I'm truly bored of this circle.

 

[ID.]

To recap. In your opening post you said "But as you reach statement prices, all the HiFi gear should start to sound more similar, as the compromises are no longer required."

I responded with post #2, trying to explain in simple laymans terms why speakers at statement prices don't sound similar and how speaker design is a series of balancing compromises.

In post #35 you said "Sure, but those compromises should become smaller and smaller and the advantages should become less clear, if they are all aiming to be accurate." This contradicts the whole point I was trying to put across with post #2.

So: you believe that statement speakers should sound more and more alike as they become higher end.

I believe that there will always be significant differences due to different compromises in the variety of speaker designs in the high end.

Who is right on this? Who is wrong?

I can name specific models that support my hypothesis. Anyone can go out and listen to them to decide if they agree with me or not.

You on the other hand have not provided any specific examples at all (apart from Magico S7's which I'm not sure was meant as a serious example and you may have just plucked them from the air without any actual experience or knowledge of the good and bad aspects of those speakers).

I think you're just using the "I don't want to waste my time" as an excuse. I think you can't name a single example of any speakers that reinforce your hypothesis. You can't name a single example because you don't know of any. You don't know of any because there aren't any. There aren't any because your hypothesis is wrong.

My hypothesis as highlighted is in relation to Colouration. I believe most of the differences in HiFi are due to deliberate colouration of the sound rather than the aim of being accurate.

You believe that any differences are due to limits in speaker technology and not house sound/coulouration.

How do you propose that either of us prove our positions? I thought it was obvious that neither can be proved in the manner you suggest. But you think you must be right, because you can name speakers that don't sound the same. How does that prove that the differences are entirely due to limitations of the technology and not deliberate colouration?

So unless you have a proper test, then we arguing opinions. Hence you are free to disagree with my Hypothesis. But you still haven't provided any proof or your position. So why are we arguing? And as I've said countless times: nothing we say will change each other's opinions. Thank god you're not a mod, since you would suspend me for saying that.

Anyway, if you come up with an interesting test, I'll respond. Otherwise feel free to have the last word, as I'm truly bored of this circle.

While I agree that in theory, if all kit is aiming for accuracy and neutrality the better the kit the more alike it should sound I can't agree that the reason it doesn't is because of deliberate coloration. I'm sure there is deliberate coloration in many cases, but my thoughts are that its the speakers where your hypothesis falls apart. As discussed, there are always compromises and that's where the most distortion is introduced in the sound reproduction chain. Transducer technology is nowhere near the flat frequency response and vanishingly small distortion that we can get from digital sources and amplifiers. That's why there's the discussions that go on about digital sources and even amplifiers sounding pretty much the same in blind testing while I've yet to hear people even bring it up for speakers.

 

[Ajani]

As a reminder for all those who didn't notice the huge dislaimer at the begining of this thread:

In my opinion, most HiFi seems to falls along the scale of Imagination --> Exaggeration --> Colouration.

By default I expect persons to have contrary opinions, as such is the nature of life. If however, your aim for whatever reason is to change my opinion or prove that my opinion is wrong, then you need to provide some actual proof and not just argue your opinion endlessly.

 

[tonky]

can i have it ? last word - there it's done!

 

[tonky]

can i have it ? last word - there it's done!

 

[Ajani]

can i have it ? last word - there it's done!

Nope. You were wrong!

*biggrin*

 

[ID.]

As a reminder for all those who didn't notice the huge dislaimer at the begining of this thread:

In my opinion, most HiFi seems to falls along the scale of Imagination --> Exaggeration --> Colouration.

By default I expect persons to have contrary opinions, as such is the nature of life. If however, your aim for whatever reason is to change my opinion or prove that my opinion is wrong, then you need to provide some actual proof and not just argue your opinion endlessly.

Well, that's the problem because I don't see the proof for your argument. I don't have proof for my own other than the failure of all speakers to provide a flat FR compared to DACs and amps and the fact that distortion figures are never given for speakers. Now how much of the FR and the distortion is due to deliberate coloration to create a house sound and what is just inevitable due to the compromised nature of speakers is impossible to say. Some companies will be aiming for the impossible ideal while others try to create a certain sound. I believe this happens at all levels of the game.

 

[Ajani]

As a reminder for all those who didn't notice the huge dislaimer at the begining of this thread:

In my opinion, most HiFi seems to falls along the scale of Imagination --> Exaggeration --> Colouration.

By default I expect persons to have contrary opinions, as such is the nature of life. If however, your aim for whatever reason is to change my opinion or prove that my opinion is wrong, then you need to provide some actual proof and not just argue your opinion endlessly.

Well, that's the problem because I don't see the proof for your argument. I don't have proof for my own other than the failure of all speakers to provide a flat FR compared to DACs and amps and the fact that distortion figures are never given for speakers. Now how much of the FR and the distortion is due to deliberate coloration to create a house sound and what is just inevitable due to the compromised nature of speakers is impossible to say. Some companies will be aiming for the impossible ideal while others try to create a certain sound. I believe this happens at all levels of the game.

I agree! There is no proof of my colouration argument. It is an opinion! That's why I don't mind having a discussion of it, but if that discussions turns into an unpleasant cycle, as it did with Lindsayt, then I see no issue with ending it.

For the record, I posted that before I saw your reply (so it wasn't specifically aimed at you).

 

[Ajani]

To recap. In your opening post you said "But as you reach statement prices, all the HiFi gear should start to sound more similar, as the compromises are no longer required."

I responded with post #2, trying to explain in simple laymans terms why speakers at statement prices don't sound similar and how speaker design is a series of balancing compromises.

In post #35 you said "Sure, but those compromises should become smaller and smaller and the advantages should become less clear, if they are all aiming to be accurate." This contradicts the whole point I was trying to put across with post #2.

So: you believe that statement speakers should sound more and more alike as they become higher end.

I believe that there will always be significant differences due to different compromises in the variety of speaker designs in the high end.

Who is right on this? Who is wrong?

I can name specific models that support my hypothesis. Anyone can go out and listen to them to decide if they agree with me or not.

You on the other hand have not provided any specific examples at all (apart from Magico S7's which I'm not sure was meant as a serious example and you may have just plucked them from the air without any actual experience or knowledge of the good and bad aspects of those speakers).

I think you're just using the "I don't want to waste my time" as an excuse. I think you can't name a single example of any speakers that reinforce your hypothesis. You can't name a single example because you don't know of any. You don't know of any because there aren't any. There aren't any because your hypothesis is wrong.

My hypothesis as highlighted is in relation to Colouration. I believe most of the differences in HiFi are due to deliberate colouration of the sound rather than the aim of being accurate.

You believe that any differences are due to limits in speaker technology and not house sound/coulouration.

How do you propose that either of us prove our positions? I thought it was obvious that neither can be proved in the manner you suggest. But you think you must be right, because you can name speakers that don't sound the same. How does that prove that the differences are entirely due to limitations of the technology and not deliberate colouration?

So unless you have a proper test, then we arguing opinions. Hence you are free to disagree with my Hypothesis. But you still haven't provided any proof or your position. So why are we arguing? And as I've said countless times: nothing we say will change each other's opinions. Thank god you're not a mod, since you would suspend me for saying that.

Anyway, if you come up with an interesting test, I'll respond. Otherwise feel free to have the last word, as I'm truly bored of this circle.

While I agree that in theory, if all kit is aiming for accuracy and neutrality the better the kit the more alike it should sound I can't agree that the reason it doesn't is because of deliberate coloration. I'm sure there is deliberate coloration in many cases, but my thoughts are that its the speakers where your hypothesis falls apart. As discussed, there are always compromises and that's where the most distortion is introduced in the sound reproduction chain. Transducer technology is nowhere near the flat frequency response and vanishingly small distortion that we can get from digital sources and amplifiers. That's why there's the discussions that go on about digital sources and even amplifiers sounding pretty much the same in blind testing while I've yet to hear people even bring it up for speakers.

Fair enough. I don't doubt there are differences between speakers or that differences will remain (until the day manufacturers produce the perfect speaker). However, the differences should get smaller as you advance in price.

As for Blind testing; the same video from Dr. Toole showed that the differences in speakers were far smaller in blind testing than sighed ones... Yes, they didn't completely disappear, but that's not the point.

An entry level electrostat will have very limited frequency range compared to similarly priced cone/box speaker. But as you get closer to statement prices, the frequency range of the electrostat increases. Simply because you can create a much larger electrostat. That is a simple example of the differences getting smaller as you approach statement prices.

Yes, you may well reach a point where the tech reaches it limits. In which case, I would ask why are you still using that tech? So if Electrostats, horns etc are just incapable of being advanced any further, then why are manufacturers creating more and more expensive versions of them? IMO, they are chasing a specific sound that I refer to as deliberate colouration, rather than accuracy.

 

[Ajani]

....the failure of all speakers to provide a flat FR compared to DACs and amps and the fact that distortion figures are never given for speakers. Now how much of the FR and the distortion is due to deliberate coloration to create a house sound and what is just inevitable due to the compromised nature of speakers is impossible to say. Some companies will be aiming for the impossible ideal while others try to create a certain sound. I believe this happens at all levels of the game.

That's a solid point and I do agree that some differences will be due to the limitations of the technology. These issues are always far more complicated than any one simple explanation.

For example, is the midrange of an electrostat really more accurate than a box speaker or is just that many audiohphiles prefer how it sounds? Likewise for persons who love the sound of tubes or vinyl? is there some part of the sound that is more accurate or real in these techs, or is is just a pleasant type of distortion? Is it possibly a combination of both?

 

[CnoEvil]

BLIMEY! (picks up bottle of Guinness and continues drinking).

 

[steve_1979]

can i have it ? last word - there it's done!

There you go.

 

[tonky]

re last word - this thread has done my head!

 

[Vladimir]

 

[ID.]

As a reminder for all those who didn't notice the huge dislaimer at the begining of this thread:

In my opinion, most HiFi seems to falls along the scale of Imagination --> Exaggeration --> Colouration.

By default I expect persons to have contrary opinions, as such is the nature of life. If however, your aim for whatever reason is to change my opinion or prove that my opinion is wrong, then you need to provide some actual proof and not just argue your opinion endlessly.

Well, that's the problem because I don't see the proof for your argument. I don't have proof for my own other than the failure of all speakers to provide a flat FR compared to DACs and amps and the fact that distortion figures are never given for speakers. Now how much of the FR and the distortion is due to deliberate coloration to create a house sound and what is just inevitable due to the compromised nature of speakers is impossible to say. Some companies will be aiming for the impossible ideal while others try to create a certain sound. I believe this happens at all levels of the game.

I agree! There is no proof of my colouration argument. It is an opinion! That's why I don't mind having a discussion of it, but if that discussions turns into an unpleasant cycle, as it did with Lindsayt, then I see no issue with ending it.

For the record, I posted that before I saw your reply (so it wasn't specifically aimed at you).

no worrie. I didn't think it was, just arguing/discussing for the sake of it and I thought I'd address that point.

Much of the discussion can only be theoretical, even by those interested in the science because we don't have access to the data and don't have the capability to test in ways that may be revealing.

With speaker technology I believe we're at a near enough is good enough stage and there just isn't the commercial incentive to fund R&D to a level closer to perfection, if it is even possible. We're a pretty niche market.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Devialet allow you to change the input sensitivity on Phono inputs from .2VRMS to 4.0VRMS. - Is this the way forward?

2Vrms for unbalanced line and 4Vrms is for balanced.

And I told you Devialet is desirable hi-fi porn. It's not only good performance kit but also a statement of industrial design, which I like.

Nah, you can go anywhere between 0.2Vrms and 4Vrms on a line input using a sliding scale.

 

[Womaz]

This forum certainly has some characters *biggrin*

 

[Ajani]

This forum certainly has some characters *biggrin*

If you think this forum has characters, you should try some of the American ones. I find the arguments here downright pleasant by comparison to some of the threads that go down there...

 

[davedotco]

Who is right on this?

Normally it defaults to Davedotco (or else he gets all upset and starts dropping names everywhere).

However he has been attached to a bottle since New Year's Eve and hasn't shown up except to make his excuses a couple of days ago. (His absence has resulted in Vlad getting out of control and throwing rocks at peasants from his mountain lair!)

Nope, sober for several days. This thread is getting fractious enough without any help from me, go for it.

Actually quite busy getting my **** together for a trip to cental america, Costa Rica/Nicaraguar. Spent much of today programming the iPad and cameras to allow remote shooting in the faint hope of getting photos of this...

Central american jaguar, almost but not quite a leopard, very hard to find but we might get lucky...*unknw*